MANAGEMENT SRI BALASUBRAMANIAN LORRY SERVICE Vs. PARAMASIVA NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner management has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent relating to the award dated August 5, 1992 made in C. P. No. 440 of 1989 and to quash the same.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that the petitioner management was a proprietary concern and the first respondent herein is an ex-employee of the petitioner concern; that while he was working as an attender in the year 1978, he was terminated for want of vacancy that against the order of termination, he filed a petition under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act as per the proceeding in the TNSC. No. 26 of 1978 on the file of Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madurai; that the learned Commissioner passed an award reinstating the first respondent in the service of the petitioner as per its order dated July 13, 1990 and against this order, the petitioner filed 1 a writ petition in W. P. No. 3258 of 1981 and the same was disposed of on March 23, 1988; that the then proprietor Kanniappa Nadar passed away on March 24, 1988 leaving behind his wife, sons and daughters as his legal heirs who were not aware of the proceedings of the writ petition and were not in a position to take steps prefer an appeal challenging the order of the writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioner would further submit that taking advantage of the order of reinstatement passed by the first respondent claiming the back wages to the tune of Rs. 35,000 with 12 per cent interest, filed a petition under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in C. P. No. 440 of 1989 on the file of the second respondent and in spite of having contended that the sole proprietor of the petitioner concern died, the second respondent on an erroneous conclusion arrived at, allowed the petition awarding a sum of Rs. 17,250 towards the arrears from the date of termination by the award dated August 5, 1992; that aggrieved by the said order of the second respondent, the petitioner alleging that he is having no other effective alternate remedy, has come forward to file this writ petition on certain grounds as brought forth in the writ petition.